REVERSED

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs
Ex parte ISHIMARU et al LEBOVITZ 103(a) WHITHAM, CURTIS & CHRISTOFFERSON & COOK, P.C.

Ex parte ROONEY et al WALSH 112(1) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP

“[D]rawings alone may be sufficient to provide the written description of the invention required by § 112, first paragraph.” Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 19 USPQ2d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 1991). . .1504.20, 2161, 2163, 2163.02, 2164, 2181

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex parte BARNS et al BAUMEISTER 102(e)/103(a) Dissenting-in-Part EASTHOM TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C.

“Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs.” SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 439 F.3d 1312, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Designs
Ex parte GOULETTE et al MEDLEY 102(b)/103(a) DELPHI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

Ex parte MCCARTHY LANE 102(b)/102(e)/103(a) 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) Debra D. Condino Edwards Lifesciences LLC

Although Bolling does not anticipate the ring recited in Appellant’s claims 6 and 10, it renders it obvious because the difference between the claimed dimensions of “between about 3.3:4 . . . to 4:4 . . .” and the dimension of “about 3:4” taught in Bolling is minor, and Appellant’s specification does not provide sufficient evidence that the claimed dimension is critical. See Haynes Int’l, Inc. v. Jessop Steel Co., 8 F.3d 1573, 1577, n.3 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“when the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in range or value is minor.”); see also In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-70 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“When an applicant seeks to overcome a prima facie case of obviousness by showing improved performance in a range that is within or overlaps with a range disclosed in the prior art, the applicant must ‘show that the [claimed] range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.’”) (quoting In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). Accordingly, we enter a new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Bolling for claims 6 and 8-20.

Geisler, In re, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.05, 2145

Woodruff, In re, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . 2144.05